Tag: nato

Russian Drone Found At Military Base In Lithuania Which Hosts NATO Troops

A suspected errant Russian drone has breached a NATO country’s airspace this week – though certainly not for the first time, and is setting off the proverbial alarm within Lithuania’s military

The drone was discovered crashed at a Lithuanian military training area after entering the country’s airspace from Belarus, after first being spotted early Monday morning, Lithuania’s army reported on Friday. The military first tracked in on radar over Belarusian airspace, near the border.

Several area residents actually captured footage of it flying over Vilnius before it vanished, and later was found on the ground at the military training base.

“It’s likely the same drone that breached our airspace on Monday. Initial analysis suggests it may be a Gerbera model, though this is still being confirmed,” the Lithuanian military said in the statement.

At least one Lithuanian lawmaker has portrayed the drone breach incident as intentional, also given it ended up at a military site.

“This looks like a provocation,” said Mindaugas Sinkevičius, interim leader of Lithuania’s ruling Social Democratic Party, while describing that the sensitive area where it was found leads to the conclusion that the breach was on purpose or a test of sorts.

It has been identified as a Gerbera drone, a type which Russia’s military often utilizes as a decoy to mislead or distract air defense systems in Ukraine.

Interestingly, the Gaižiūnai training grounds near Rukla – where it was recovered – actually hosts a NATO multinational battalion, regional reports say.

Keep reading

Kiev Kleptocracy… Stench of Corruption Fouls NATO Regime’s Endgame

The sewer gates are opening as the endgame approaches. It’s not just the Kiev cabal that will be swept away.

Previously, any observer who had pointed out the rampant corruption that is endemic in the Kiev regime was automatically denounced by Western governments and media as a peddler of Russian disinformation.

Hilariously, though, this week, the Kiev kleptocracy burst open in such a spectacular way that even the American and European apologists for the regime could no longer maintain the worst-kept secret of their charade.

The fiasco exploded after the self-appointed President of Ukraine, Vladimir Zelensky, passed a law that stripped two anti-corruption agencies of their independent powers.Raico, Ralph

Citizens took to the streets of Kiev and other cities in furious protest against what they openly lambasted as an autocratic regime trying to prolong its corrupt racketeering. The demonstrations were the largest seen on the streets of Ukraine despite the country being at war with Russia for over three years. As the Wall Street Journal reported: “The protests exposed long dormant divisions between the government and society.”

Zelensky, whose official presidential mandate expired last year, was stunned by the upsurge in public anger. By the end of the week, he was backtracking on the move to close the anti-graft agencies and was claiming, somewhat unconvincingly, that he was drafting a new bill to return the investigative powers. It was damage-limitation mode and largely prompted by the alarm of his Western backers.

It is not clear if the U-turn will appease the Ukrainian public, who appear to have reached a pivotal level of disgust with the Kiev regime, not just over its endemic corruption but also over the grinding war with Russia and forced mobilization of reluctant military recruits.

Keep reading

Five Reasons Why No Amount of Additional NATO Support to Ukraine Can Stop Russian Steamroller

The US and its European NATO allies are working on new arrangements to keep the proxy war against Russia in Ukraine going for as long as possible. Here’s why the outcome will be the same no matter how much additional support is delivered.

  1. Ukraine Has Already Lost

Long term, “there is no material-technical nor political strategy” to avoid Ukraine’s defeat, Quincy Institute fellow Almut Rochowanski told Responsible Statecraft this week, stressing that the West simply doesn’t have the capacity to arm Kiev sufficiently to stop it from losing more territory, troops, arms and infrastructure.

  1. Russia’s Advance Has Become Unstoppable

Case in point? The ongoing summer offensive, which even the Russophobic NYT admits has scored “its biggest monthly gains in territory since the beginning of the year” in June – attributable to advantages in troops, airpower and the “methodical” destruction of Ukraine’s army.

  1. Any New Resources Delivered Will Be Wasted

Currently, new deliveries include promises of additional Patriot batteries, sourced from European (not US) stocks, and 49 used Australian M1 Abrams tanks.

Keep reading

Analyzing The Ambiguity Over The American-NATO Arms Arrangement For Ukraine

The offensive dimension of Trump’s new three–pronged approach to Ukraine involves the sale of American weapons to NATO who’ll in turn transfer them to Ukraine.

This aligns with what Trump told NBC several days prior to the aforesaid announcement.

According to Reuters’ sources, however, “Trump presented a framework – not a fleshed-out plan”, and some of the six countries that NATO chief Rutte mentioned will participate in this scheme allegedly only found out about it during that time.

Other reports then circulated about France, Italy, and Czechia’s refusal to participate on various pretexts ranging from their principled support for the European defense industry, which would struggle to fulfill its potential if EU countries buy more expensive US arms, to simple budgetary concerns.

The resultant ambiguity over the American-NATO arms arrangement for Ukraine that Trump announced accordingly raises questions about what’s really going on.

There are three likely explanations.

  • The first is that there were innocent communication issues between the US, NATO, and the bloc’s individual members, but that’s difficult to believe since everyone just gathered for the latest NATO Summit less than a month ago. This arrangement was presumably discussed during that time. It would also contextualize their agreement to raise defense spending to 5% of GDP, especially if the Europeans expected to purchase more expensive arms for transfer to Ukraine as part of this arrangement.
  • The second explanation is that nothing concrete was agreed to, at least with all members, during that summit. This would account for why some of them were reportedly caught by surprise and others refuse to participate. In this scenario, Trump’s announcement would have been meant to pressure them into this profitable arrangement to “save face” since all but Hungary and Slovakia (which also won’t participate) have consistently claimed that they’ll support Ukraine “for as long as it takes”.
  • And finally, the last possibility is that the analyzed media reports are part of a deception campaign along the lines of what Israeli media claimed that Trump and Bibi pulled off ahead of them bombing Iran. This version of events assumes that there’s much more agreement between NATO members behind the scenes than has been reported. The purpose of claiming otherwise would be to get Russia’s guard down ahead of what could be NATO’s rapid rearmament of Ukraine with American weapons.

Whichever explanation(s) one adheres to, more clarity will be forthcoming from Russian media reports, which will reveal the existence of these new arms on the battlefield or lack thereof ahead of the expiry of Trump’s 50-day deadline. If lots of US arms flood into Ukraine, then it’ll show that there was enough agreement and capacity to back up his threat. If not, then he might blame the Europeans for fumbling it, after which he might only impose some secondary sanctions but no longer militarily escalate.

Keep reading

Trump Flirts with NATO’s Hardliners

Multiple reports in Western news media highlight President Donald Trump’s growing dissatisfaction with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The Financial Times reported that Trump had encouraged Kiev to punish Putin by striking deep inside Russian territory—perhaps even hitting Moscow—if the U.S. provided it with more long-range weapons. (Trump has denied he supports such strikes.)

In marked contrast to the initial weeks of his second term, Trump has now effectively signed on to NATO’s uncompromising strategy of insisting on Russia’s capitulation with respect to the terms of a peace accord between Russia and Ukraine. The Western demands include Russia’s complete withdrawal from conquered Ukrainian territory (including Crimea) and its acquiescence to Kiev’s possibly joining NATO. 

Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe Admiral James Stavridis expresses the prevailing mentality of hardliners when he contends that sending Ukraine openly offensive weapons might be the most effective way to force Moscow back to the negotiating table.

The ongoing transformation of Trump’s overall approach to the war between Russia and Ukraine has been breathtaking. During the 2024 presidential election campaign, Trump portrayed the Biden administration’s participation in NATO’s policy of using Ukraine in a proxy war against Russia as an expensive, potentially dangerous blunder. Trump led his political followers to believe that he would terminate the Ukraine entanglement as soon as possible, since it was inconsistent with his overall concept of an “America First” foreign policy. On one occasion, he even boasted that he could bring an end to the Russia–Ukraine conflict in 24 hours. Instead, he has now decided to help rearm Ukraine and even escalate Washington’s support by accelerating shipments of Patriot air defense missiles and other munitions to Kiev.

Trump’s attitude toward Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has undergone a similarly radical transformation. In the initial weeks of his second term, Trump seemed to grasp that improving Washington’s relations with Moscow needed to be a high priority, and that the Ukraine conflict was the principal obstacle to achieving that objective. His rhetoric toward Putin was conciliatory, in marked contrast to the openly hostile and contemptuous attitude of Biden administration officials. At the same time, Trump seemed to regard Zelensky as an arrogant, ungrateful U.S. and NATO client determined to continue pursuing a “wag the dog strategy” toward his Western patrons.

Keep reading

What NATO Countries Spend On Military, Health, & Education

NATO countries officially agreed to raise their defense expenditures to 5% of their GDP by 2035.

But how do their military expenditures compare to what they spend on health and education?

This visualization, via Visual Capitalist’s Pallavi Rao, shows a side-by-side comparison of government spending priorities as a percentage of GDP for all NATO members.

Compared: NATO’s Spending on Military Vs. Education and Health

Currently, every NATO country currently spends less on its military than on health or education.

However, the new 5% of GDP target for defense spending is currently higher than what every NATO country currently spends on their military.

Keep reading

NATO Turning Moldova Into ‘Cannon Fodder’ To Confront Russia: Kremlin

Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) on Monday issued a rare statement accusing the West, under US leadership, of turning Moldova into a military outpost aimed at confronting Russia, akin to what has happened over several years with Ukraine.

The SVR’s provocative statement said Washington wants to use the country as “cannon fodder” in future hostilities, which is allegedly being fast-tracked by Western foreign policy decision-makers.

The statement further alleged that NATO wants to turn tiny Moldova into a “military testing ground” by modernizing its railways to European specifications and constructing major logistics hubs for future Western military deployments. This also includes serious upgrades to airfields, to host military planes, according to Russian state media.

Russian intelligence also accused Moldovan President Maia Sandu of surrendering national interests to Western powers, dubbing her administration a “comprador regime” – and that her pro-European Party of Action and Solidarity is being propped up and strengthened by the West.

These charged can’t exactly be dismissed as paranoia or propaganda, given for example that just last year the United Kingdom inked a new defense pact with Moldova, precisely to counter ‘Russian aggression’ – as we previously detailed.

The tiny Eastern European nation bordering Ukraine has experienced the same kind of internal political pro-EU vs. pro-Russia tug of war historically on display in other countries such as Ukraine or Georgia.

The UK foreign ministry described the defense agreement as about “building on extensive cooperation between the two countries and strengthening Moldovan resilience against external threats.”

One thing which has long alarmed the West is the presence of Russian ‘peacekeeping’ troops in Moldova’s breakaway Transnistria region. 

As for Transnistria, although it has diverse ethnic demographics almost equally apportioned between Russians, Moldovans, Romanians and Ukrainians, the Russian demographic slightly ekes out its counterparts with a plurality of 29% of Transnistrians belonging to the group.

Keep reading.

Could NATO Burden-Sharing Be a Subtle Snare for the United States?

Both Donald Trump and his legions of critics in Europe are celebrating the outcome of the latest NATO summit.  The centerpiece of NATO’s renewed image of solidarity was an agreement among all Alliance members (except Spain) to boost their annual defense outlays to at least 5 percent of their yearly gross domestic product (GDP).  Although NATO officials portrayed this commitment as a purely voluntary step, it appeased Trump’s long-standing demands for greater financial “burden-sharing” within the Alliance.

Hawks on both sides of the Atlantic may cheer this development, but advocates of a genuine “America first” foreign policy for Washington have little reason to celebrate.  Indeed, more burden-sharing has a disturbing potential to entangle the United States in a growing array of dangerous quarrels between Europe (especially NATO’s East European members) and Russia.  Thus, there could be more Ukraine-style proxy wars in our future.

European leaders apparently were willing to make major concessions to secure America’s continued entanglement in the continent’s security affairs.  They even let Trump take his propaganda victory lap following the U.S. attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, despite continued misgivings in some European capitals about the wisdom of his action.  They gave the U.S. leader an even more impressive, albeit implicit, diplomatic victory lap regarding Alliance defense spending.  This theme had dominated Washington’s transatlantic agenda during Trump’s first term, when he pressured the allies to fulfill repeated pledges they had made over the years to spend at least 2 percent of GDP on defense.  During the 2024 U.S. presidential campaign, his demand escalated to 5 percent – the same figure that NATO summit leaders have now adopted.

Despite any superficial appearances, the outcome of the June 2025 NATO summit was not good for the American people.  A meaningful debate in the United States on the future of Washington’s transatlantic policy should not focus on the issue of burden-sharing.  America’s principal need is not for more burden-sharing within NATO; our republic needs a strategic divorce from NATO.

Despite hoary propaganda about NATO being an alliance of equals, there was always a yawning gap between that image and the reality of U.S. hegemony.  The United States invariably  called the shots on Alliance policy regarding security issues that U.S. leaders deemed truly important anywhere in the world.

An especially graphic demonstration of how the transatlantic power relationship worked in practice came during the Cuban Missile crisis during the autumn of 1963.  John F. Kennedy’s administration dispatched former ambassador W. Averell Harriman to meet with French President Charles De Gaulle about the alarming situation.  Near the end of the session, De Gaulle asked Harriman if he was consulting with him about U.S. policy or “informing” him.  Harriman conceded that Washington was merely informing its ally. The United States would make the final decision unilaterally, based on America’s best interests.

One consequence of that confirmation of Washington’s dominance within NATO was that France promptly developed and deployed an independent strategic nuclear deterrent and withdrew from NATO’s military structure, thus asserting an independent role for France.

Keep reading

Europe’s Defense Reality Check: The Mathematics of Military Inadequacy

Following President Trump’s successful push for NATO allies to commit to spending 5% of GDP on defense by 2035, Europe now faces the potentially insurmountable challenge of reversing decades of military neglect. Building a force capable of defending the continent against Russia or China will be a massive undertaking, made even more difficult by declining birthrates, a shrinking workforce, and the political cost of maintaining generous welfare states and pacifist norms.

NATO allies agreed on June 25, 2025, to more than double their defense spending target from 2% of GDP to 5% by 2035, with the commitment structured as 3.5% for “core defense” and 1.5% for broader security measures including infrastructure and cyber defense. This achievement was widely praised, with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte stating: “Would you ever think that this would be the result of this summit if he would not have been re-elected president? … I think he deserves all the praise”. However, the magnitude of this commitment becomes clear when examining current spending levels and capability gaps.

In 2024, European NATO members spent a combined $454 billion on defense, just 30% of total NATO spending, while the United States spent $997 billion, or 66%. Reports claim European military spending rose by 17% to $693 billion in 2024, but that figure misleadingly includes Russia’s estimated $149 billion. Given that NATO exists primarily to deter Russian aggression, it is absurd to include Russia’s defense budget in Europe’s total.

Even in terms of GDP percentage, Russia continues to outpace the European Union in defense spending. The EU’s total defense spending is projected to reach around 2.04% of GDP in 2025, while Russia is expected to spend 7.5% of its GDP on the military. But the gap in spending is just one part of Europe’s broader capabilities deficit.

Unlike Russia or the United States, Europe’s $454 billion in defense expenditures is fragmented across more than 30 countries, each with its own command structure, procurement system, administrative overhead, and military bureaucracy. In contrast, the United States achieves far greater efficiency and combat power through its unified $997 billion defense budget, which supports a single military structure with global reach.

Keep reading

NATO Holds Drills Near Russian Border Based on Israel-Iran Conflict Tactics

NATO forces near Russia’s border in Karelia have recently conducted drills simulating a breakthrough of Russian air defenses, based on scenarios from the recent Israeli-American campaign in Iran, the Izvestia newspaper said citing unnamed sources.
According to the outlet, NATO aircraft maneuvers in Finland near the Russian border took place as part of the Atlantic Trident 25 exercises held from June 16 to 27. The drills involved over 40 aircraft from the air forces of Finland, the United States, France, and the United Kingdom. Notably, the Izvestia reports that RQ-4D Phoenix reconnaissance drones were deployed to Finland for the first time during the exercise.

In parallel with Atlantic Trident 25, NATO also reportedly conducted another set of maneuvers titled Itakaira-2025/2, which were not officially announced by the alliance. These exercises included rapid aircraft launches, air combat, gaining air superiority, striking ground targets, and penetrating Russian air defense systems, according to the publication.

Military analyst Yuri Lyamin stated that NATO’s growing strike presence along Russia’s border necessitates a reinforcement of Russia’s fighter aviation and air defense systems.

Another expert, Dmitry Kornev, suggested that in the event of actual hostilities in the region, NATO could deploy over 70 aircraft against Russia.

Keep reading